Stereoscopic depth a triumph; image resolution a tribulation. Still, the Rift will get better.

Technology company Oculus has been gradually shipping out final developer kits for its Kickstarter-funded Rift head-mounted display to more than 9,000 backers. While we haven't been able to do extensive in-home testing yet, we did manage to get some hands-on time with the final developer unit at a recent event. Our first impressions suggest that this device easily sets a new high water mark for virtual reality, but it could still stand to see some improvements before it's ready for consumers' hands.

The shipping-ready developer unit I tried has come a long way since the prototype I first sampled at PAX East last year. For one thing, the Rift is now making use of a big 7-inch diagonal display, up from the 5.6-inch display found on prototypes. While the early units had a roughly 110 degree viewing range, the new display was enough to cover my entire field of vision, even when I shifted my eyes left or right to try to make out the edges of the view. The new display also provides smoother pixel switching than earlier demos did, resulting in less blurring and streaking when I moved my head about. I was told that there was about a 60 millisecond delay between an input and the resulting pixels on the demo running on an Nvidia 680 graphics card.

These improvements came at some expense to the weight of the unit, which is now 90 grams heavier than it was before the screen was expanded. Frankly, I didn't find the added mass to be distracting. Putting the unit on felt comparable to donning a pair of sleek ski goggles. After a quick adjustment with some twistable knobs, I was able to get rid of an annoying nose pinch, and I found it quite easy to forget the unit was on my head at all.

The Oculus team was showing off a demo of Hawken, which was an inspired choice to highlight the Rift's features. Hawken is a game in which your character is actually sitting in the seat of a giant mech, so it feels natural to be sitting in a seat and looking at a perspective from inside the cockpit. Even when the mech turns with the push of an analog stick, the cockpit housing stays fixed in relative space, providing a bit of a psychological anchor that prevents the nausea I felt playing Doom 3 on an earlier unit (the improved latency also likely helped on that score).

Enlarge/ The final development unit (left) shown next to an early prototype (right).

Hawken also does a great job of showing off the incredible sense of stereoscopic depth you can get when playing the Rift. I usually have to close my eyes and blink away a headache after a few minutes of looking at a simulated 3D image on a screen, whether it's shown with or without glasses. I didn't have this problem with the Rift, though, possibly because each eye was actually getting a distinct, unfiltered image. There were none of the interference or flickering issues that often show up when using 3D glasses or pixel-grated LCD displays.

The result was an incredible sense of apparent distance between the surrounding cockpit and the buildings in the hazy distance. It only got more convincing thanks to the excellent head tracking, which refused to get confused no matter how fast or oddly I shook my head about. It all combined into an amazing sense of freedom and immersion when I flew into the air with a jet pack, and a strong sense of vertigo as I went into free fall and saw the ground rushing up to meet my feet.

Unfortunately, the Hawken demo also highlighted what's currently the biggest problem with the Rift: resolution. The 1280×800 display sounds like it would be decent enough for a 7-inch screen. But when that display is sitting just a few inches from your face—and it's split down the middle into separate images for both eyes—it doesn't quite cut it. The short viewing distance makes it pretty easy to make out individual pixels, including the thin black lines that surround each one. People used to retina displays and high-def PC monitors will probably find everything just a bit muddy. This is more than a purely cosmetic concern, too; when I looked down at my cockpit in Hawken, the ammunition readout looked like a blurry, unreadable blob. When I took off the headset briefly and looked at the source image on the monitor in front of me, however, it was crystal clear.

Improving the resolution is one of the top priorities as Oculus continues to tweak the hardware from its current development kit to an eventual consumer version, Oculus VP of Product Nate Mitchell told Ars. "Resolution is at the top of my humble list, only because the Rift is all about a visually immersive experience," he said. "We're trying to trick your brain purely with visuals that you're in the game. The higher the resolution of the panel, the higher fidelity the visuals, the better everything's going to look."

Mitchell compared the effect he was looking for to going from an original iPhone to one with a retina display that packs more pixels in the same space. "I'm not saying that's the jump we're going to make, but that level of quality. It's hard to go back. We're not quite there, and we think that's really key to making an awesome consumer experience."

Enlarge/ The final Oculus Rift development kit sitting on top of its included carrying case.

Balancing that desire for extra resolution with all the other things that make for a high quality head-mounted display is key. The Oculus team has evaluated dozens of LCD displays for everything from latency and pixel switching time to power consumption, weight, contrast, and brightness, Mitchell said. To evaluate which elements are worth trading for improvements in other areas, Mitchell said each specification goes into a weighted spreadsheet for each potential display. That spreadsheet then spits out a single number that can be used to guide Oculus' decision on a display with the best balance between affordability, wearability, and immersion.

"Price is the number one factor... You can't have a panel that costs $300 that you're putting in a product that costs $300, and we definitely want to stay in that range for the consumer version," he said.

While Oculus has been looking to off-the-shelf cell phone displays for its materials, there have been some issues that manufacturers aren't really equipped to handle. "So many of the cell phone devs aren't worried about the same problems we are," Mitchell said. "Every one is unique in some weird way."

The dream would be to get a panel manufacturer to make a customized display just for the Rift, but that's just not possible at this point. "The best panels are very expensive and just not in the price range, and some of them aren't available to us; they're only available to the people manufacturing them," Mitchell said. "It's tricky, because we walk up and we're tiny Oculus and we say, 'Hey, we want to make this product—can we get some of your panels...' and they say, "How many are you making?" and we say, '10K,' and they boot us out of the room. As we scale up, a big part of this whole process is slowly becoming a more credible company in the sense that we can talk to the biggest display manufacturers like Sharp and LG and say, 'We really want to do this and is there any chance that your best panels might be available to us?'"

I was duly impressed with the Rift's current head-tracking abilities, and Mitchell said he'd love to have full positional tracking in a future version of the Rift. That would let the Rift track you as you move around the room, but Mitchell admitted he's more concerned with simply tracking how your head changes position slightly as you tilt and bend in place. "Right now, if there's a [camera] in the world, and you bend down, the world moves with you, because your orientation hasn't changed, so the Rift's image doesn't change." The team is looking into using ambient magnetic fields (like the Razer Hydra controller) and other potential solutions to get this feature. While they'd like to have it for the consumer launch, Mitchell admitted he "can't say if it will be there."

Promoted Comments

I'll be buying one of these the very nanosecond I can. I strongly believe that high quality immersive VR is going to be a fundamental game changer when it comes to how people play games and interact with their computers. I've been following the rift for several months now (sadly, I didn't know about it when I could have contributed to their kickstarter), and I'm just drooling at the thought of having one. I've even been going to ebay to bid on ones people put up for sale. I've given myself a limit of 500 bucks for one though, and they're currently going for around 700-800+ (okay, so in one auction I did get carried away and bid up to 600, but was output with 5 seconds to go with a bid of around 800).

I love watching people's reactions to using the rift for the first time. None can beat this video though:

Last time I played with something like this was in 1999 - Sony Glasstron (though that didn't have motion tracking), Forte VFX. I'm really happy to see that they're picking this up again after the failed dreams of VR in the mid-90s, but I was hoping resolution wouldn't be that big of a deal anymore.

They want to keep it affordable - understood. But I'm fairly certain that several people'd be willing to pay a premium for higher-res screens.

I'll be buying one of these the very nanosecond I can. I strongly believe that high quality immersive VR is going to be a fundamental game changer when it comes to how people play games and interact with their computers. I've been following the rift for several months now (sadly, I didn't know about it when I could have contributed to their kickstarter), and I'm just drooling at the thought of having one. I've even been going to ebay to bid on ones people put up for sale. I've given myself a limit of 500 bucks for one though, and they're currently going for around 700-800+ (okay, so in one auction I did get carried away and bid up to 600, but was output with 5 seconds to go with a bid of around 800).

I love watching people's reactions to using the rift for the first time. None can beat this video though:

I'll be buying one of these the very nanosecond I can. I strongly believe that high quality immersive VR is going to be a fundamental game changer when it comes to how people play games and interact with their computers. I've been following the rift for several months now (sadly, I didn't know about it when I could have contributed to their kickstarter), and I'm just drooling at the thought of having one. I've even been going to ebay to bid on ones people put up for sale. I've given myself a limit of 500 bucks for one though, and they're currently going for around 700-800+ (okay, so in one auction I did get carried away and bid up to 600, but was output with 5 seconds to go with a bid of around 800).

I love watching people's reactions to using the rift for the first time. None can beat this video though:

I hope they don't cheap-out too much on the design. I'd honestly be willing to pay $1000 without thinking twice for a high-rez version, so I think $500 might be a better initial target for the early-adopter crowd. The $300 mass-market version can come later when they prove themselves and get their volume up.

This could be potentially harmful for my health, I mean my wife gets mad enough when I'm just wearing headphones. Maybe Oculus should consider a version incorporated into a full body armor type thingie, to you know, protect their customers

This is something that I really can't wait for, ya know, one of those things that comes out and you just have to have it for once in your life. Of course the end result has to be something that really does appeal to me. But the technology has really got me jonesin for it and it's getting harder to wait.

The picture of the VP standing behind being all animated, casual, looks to be having a great time showing off his companies toy, that gets me interested in a new company/product aside from just the product. So often you see nothing but tightwads, suits, or just over board acting while a product is being demoed. Jobs standing up on stage touting the next greatest thing or Ballmer up on stage showing off the next greatest thing never motivated me to check out their newest product. Now if they instead had Billy Mays showing off their product, I'd probably have a different answer. The product could turn out to suck in the end, but it still got me to check it out.

That's an awesome video. It just shows how quickly we adapt to technology. I mean, the grandma in the video is flabbergasted by the technology, we think its pretty cool, but my 3yo kids probably wouldn't even blink. I mean they go to the TV and try to use it as if it were touch enabled, and they take transatlantic video calls with their grandparents for granted.

The fact that this only got a 1/4 of the Kickstarter funding that the Ouya got shows that consumers are not always rational actors.

Or maybe it shows that marketing plays a large role in how much funding a project gets. Or maybe it doesn't show either of those things...

It's likely due to the controversy. People really seem to only pay attention to things that are being both praised and complained about (ie. Apple, Ouya). Pretty well everyone thinks the Rift is awesome. What we need are a few Dark Knights to complain about it

It's likely due to the controversy. People really seem to only pay attention to things that are being both praised and complained about (ie. Apple, Ouya). Pretty well everyone thinks the Rift is awesome. What we need are a few Dark Knights to complain about it

The Rift has been sold explicitly as a piece of developer gear, not an end user product. Ouya is supposed to be a cheap but consumer-ready console. Given that they were both successful, the fact that a consumer market is larger than a developer market seems pretty unsurprising to me.

The fact that this only got a 1/4 of the Kickstarter funding that the Ouya got shows that consumers are not always rational actors.

I'd wager it's easier to get someone to part with $100 for a complete gaming experience promised to be free to play for the lifetime of the device, than it is to get people to spend $300 on a device which doesn't appreciably improve upon their current gaming experience and has no AAA titles signed on as being fully "Occulus Rift Compatible". Add to that the Kickstarter device is specifically designated as a development kit and getting 1/4 of the funds Ouya managed is an amazing result. Get the price down to $250 with a full hd screen in a glossy consumer package and I'll bet they find a market for 100,000 - 150,000 units a year. Get licensed as an official Xbox 720 accessory and they might improve upon that by an order of magnitude.

Last time I played with something like this was in 1999 - Sony Glasstron (though that didn't have motion tracking), Forte VFX. I'm really happy to see that they're picking this up again after the failed dreams of VR in the mid-90s, but I was hoping resolution wouldn't be that big of a deal anymore.

They want to keep it affordable - understood. But I'm fairly certain that several people'd be willing to pay a premium for higher-res screens.

I'm sure after the first run they'll want to have multiple models of varying price points and quality, just like pretty much any electronics product.

Even with the low resolution screen I will probably be buying this. Its cheap enough that it will still be cool and fun, and I can back their effort. Very excited about this product.

I agree; thanks to the head-tracking and overall immersive feel the Rift ought to be amazing for games which (can?) benefit from head tracking.

My only apprehension in that regard is that with the exception of perhaps racing games, the games which historically and presently offer the best built-in support for head tracking (e.g. realistic flight sims, ARMA) are typically games where being able to spot movement of very distant pixel-sized objects can be critical to survival. Which is to say, the Rift may not just yet be a good match for realistic flight/war sims.

Having said that, if the Rift achieves a solid groundswell, greater resolutions should only be a few years away. I'm optimistic!

The head tracking works perfectly on the final dev version. It's incredibly immersive. Playing TF2 makes me a bit nauseous after just a few minutes though. I think it's the low resolution. It'll get better. This thing is already a huge step forward. I'll be buying the consumer version as soon as it's out.

This is rather chicken and egg... I'm pretty certain that with a retina display for each eye (e.g. the panels from the HTC One) these units would sell really well. But with a low res panel its really of no use to me

Hopefully enough people don't mind the blur and keep the company alive until they can do it properly.

Is it cool? Yes. Is it practical? No. Look at how we play our games now; how many of use have the luxury of blocking out or locking out our wives and kids or the outside world? We don't.

The issue of blocking out the outside world can be addressed by attaching an external camera or two to the headset. Doing so also opens up a variety of AR applications, but I'm glad Oculus is focusing on VR problems first and foremost since that's what's going to appeal to the traditional PC and console gaming market more.

I personally think this will be great for adventure games. They used to be about the sense of wonder and immersion, but I feel they've sort of lost that as more expansive and visually stunning environments became commonplace.

Adventure games (along with flight sims, etc.) wont have the same issues as FPS games; having to reconcile 3 independent directions (which way you're facing vs. which way you're running vs. which way you're aiming) could be an issue.

If this is a good as they say it is then I am puzzled as to why they have not received offers from Sony, Nintendo or Microsoft to buy the company. Perhaps the tech is easily copied. Do they have any exclusive patents in this field?

They all add something but they aren't even necessary nor do they make gaming better.

Are you really that lacking in imagination that you can't see how this could make at least some games better? Moreover, it could also have plenty of uses outside of gaming – RC aircraft/military drone pilots could find it extremely beneficial, for example.

Quote:

strapping several pounds on my head for hours and hours at a time is not my idea of fun nor is it panacea for what's lacking in gaming.

The development version weighs 379g, or 0.84lb. Pretty far from "several pounds".

Is it cool? Yes. Is it practical? No. Look at how we play our games now; how many of use have the luxury of blocking out or locking out our wives and kids or the outside world? We don't.

The issue of blocking out the outside world can be addressed by attaching an external camera or two to the headset. Doing so also opens up a variety of AR applications, but I'm glad Oculus is focusing on VR problems first and foremost since that's what's going to appeal to the traditional PC and console gaming market more.

I'll be buying one of these the very nanosecond I can. I strongly believe that high quality immersive VR is going to be a fundamental game changer when it comes to how people play games and interact with their computers. I've been following the rift for several months now (sadly, I didn't know about it when I could have contributed to their kickstarter), and I'm just drooling at the thought of having one. I've even been going to ebay to bid on ones people put up for sale. I've given myself a limit of 500 bucks for one though, and they're currently going for around 700-800+ (okay, so in one auction I did get carried away and bid up to 600, but was output with 5 seconds to go with a bid of around 800).

I love watching people's reactions to using the rift for the first time. None can beat this video though:

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.